3 ms·
Anything “for the masses” has to compete to win over the average and below average intellects. From what I can tell, that means that you have to get more and mo
by christophilus 5y ago
Anything “for the masses” has to compete to win over the average and below average intellects. From what I can tell, that means that you have to get more and more sensationalistic to keep market share. You’re competing with a lot of addictive content out there, and educational content generally doesn’t fare well in that regard. Remember all of those educational video games in the past? Math blasters? They sucked. There’s no way they could compete with Mario and Zelda. This is the same phenomenon.
- jamesandthewolf 5y agoIs life and being alive not already the game that achieves this unless I'm mistaken it's the ultimate education platform, so maybe the answers are in finding a new way to address it.
- adrianN 5y agoPeople play games and consume media mostly to get away from life, because life has many aspects that suck.
- jamesandthewolf 5y agoTouché good human. Touché!
- GlennS 5y ago> You’re competing with a lot of addictive content out there, and educational content generally doesn’t fare well in that regard. Remember all of those educational video games in the past? Math blasters? They sucked. There’s no way they could compete with Mario and Zelda. This is the same phenomenon. I think you took the wrong lesson here (seems appropriate given the subject). Edutainment (Word Rescue and so on) wasn't unpopular because people are stupid. It was unpopular because it wasn't very good. They chased two rabbits and lost them both (education, entertainment). Mario was more fun, better art, and probably better for your mind.